From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] writeback: try more writeback as long as something was written
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 00:50:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100805225013.GC17416@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100805223929.GC5586@localhost>
On Fri 06-08-10 06:39:29, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:00:16AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > I'm just afraid that in some
> > pathological cases this could result in bad writeback pattern - like if
> > there is some process which manages to dirty just a few pages while we are
> > doing writeout, this looping could result in writing just a few pages in
> > each round which is bad for fragmentation etc.
>
> Such inodes will be redirty_tail()ed here:
>
> if (mapping_tagged(mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY)) {
> /*
> * We didn't write back all the pages. nfs_writepages()
> * sometimes bales out without doing anything.
> */
> inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> /*
> * slice used up: queue for next turn
> */
> requeue_io(inode);
> } else {
> /*
> * Writeback blocked by something other than
> * congestion. Delay the inode for some time to
> * avoid spinning on the CPU (100% iowait)
> * retrying writeback of the dirty page/inode
> * that cannot be performed immediately.
> */
> redirty_tail(inode);
> }
Yes. And then, when there are no inodes in b_more_io, they get queued
again for writeback. So for non-background WB_SYNC_NONE writeback we can
just write a few pages over and over again... Oh, ok we won't because of
my start_time fix I suppose. Maybe a comment about this by the nr_to_write
< MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES check would be good.
> > Actually, this comment probably also applies to your patch where you
> > change the queueing logic in writeback_single_inode(), doesn't it?
>
> Can you elaborate?
Sorry, my comment only applies to this particular patch. In your change
to writeback_single_inode() you requeue_io() only if nr_to_write <= 0.
Honza
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] writeback: try more writeback as long as something was written
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 00:50:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100805225013.GC17416@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100805223929.GC5586@localhost>
On Fri 06-08-10 06:39:29, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:00:16AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > I'm just afraid that in some
> > pathological cases this could result in bad writeback pattern - like if
> > there is some process which manages to dirty just a few pages while we are
> > doing writeout, this looping could result in writing just a few pages in
> > each round which is bad for fragmentation etc.
>
> Such inodes will be redirty_tail()ed here:
>
> if (mapping_tagged(mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY)) {
> /*
> * We didn't write back all the pages. nfs_writepages()
> * sometimes bales out without doing anything.
> */
> inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> /*
> * slice used up: queue for next turn
> */
> requeue_io(inode);
> } else {
> /*
> * Writeback blocked by something other than
> * congestion. Delay the inode for some time to
> * avoid spinning on the CPU (100% iowait)
> * retrying writeback of the dirty page/inode
> * that cannot be performed immediately.
> */
> redirty_tail(inode);
> }
Yes. And then, when there are no inodes in b_more_io, they get queued
again for writeback. So for non-background WB_SYNC_NONE writeback we can
just write a few pages over and over again... Oh, ok we won't because of
my start_time fix I suppose. Maybe a comment about this by the nr_to_write
< MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES check would be good.
> > Actually, this comment probably also applies to your patch where you
> > change the queueing logic in writeback_single_inode(), doesn't it?
>
> Can you elaborate?
Sorry, my comment only applies to this particular patch. In your change
to writeback_single_inode() you requeue_io() only if nr_to_write <= 0.
Honza
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-05 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-05 16:10 [PATCH 00/13] writeback patches for 2.6.36 Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 01/13] writeback: reduce calls to global_page_state in balance_dirty_pages() Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 02/13] writeback: avoid unnecessary calculation of bdi dirty thresholds Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-06 10:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-06 10:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 03/13] writeback: add comment to the dirty limits functions Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-06 10:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-06 10:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-07 16:47 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-07 16:47 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 04/13] writeback: dont redirty tail an inode with dirty pages Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 05/13] writeback: fix queue_io() ordering Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 06/13] writeback: merge for_kupdate and !for_kupdate cases Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 07/13] writeback: explicit low bound for vm.dirty_ratio Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 23:34 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-05 23:34 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-06 12:44 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-06 12:44 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-10 3:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-10 3:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-10 3:57 ` Neil Brown
2010-08-10 3:57 ` Neil Brown
2010-08-10 13:29 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-10 13:29 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-10 18:12 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-10 18:12 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-10 18:06 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-10 18:06 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` [PATCH 08/13] writeback: pass writeback_control down to move_expired_inodes() Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` [PATCH 09/13] writeback: the kupdate expire timestamp should be a moving target Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` [PATCH 10/13] writeback: kill writeback_control.more_io Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` [PATCH 11/13] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background writeback Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` [PATCH 12/13] writeback: try more writeback as long as something was written Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 17:00 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-05 17:00 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-05 22:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 22:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 22:50 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2010-08-05 22:50 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-05 16:11 ` [PATCH 13/13] writeback: introduce writeback_control.inodes_written Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 16:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-05 23:08 ` [PATCH 00/13] writeback patches for 2.6.36 Andrew Morton
2010-08-05 23:08 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100805225013.GC17416@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.